If we can call this BVR or any Long range operation in the M-2000c

[Saltat_cum_mortem]

I might not have been clear enough in my original post. My point is that you may want to fly down the Mirage only against fighter that are more advanced and when flying over friendly territory. The only planes that would force you to do that are fox-3 planes, planes the Mirage wasn't originally design to handle.

 

Against opponent firing SARH missile like the R-33/R-40/AIM-7 it should do fine and flying low doesn't seem to be a valid tactic anymore.

Well, to be honest, I just looked up M2000 weapon loadout and it seems I overestimated the max range of the missiles used. My bad.

 

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

[Eihort]

Really the problem is that it's incredibly difficult online to model something close enough to the real thing to use a lot of tactics used in the real world. No radio comms with more than a handful of people and no real GCI/AWACS and no IADS, AI or player monitored all contribute to this.

 

What ends up happening is you basically have a handful of pilots, who have difficulty using comms (not everyone is on TS, and sometimes it's more fun to talk stupid stuff than ACTUAL tactics), most of whom are flying around only looking to score kills with little to no regard for their personal or aircraft safety.

 

Flying low, practicing good EMCON, sticking to the mountains is the response to this.

[QuiGon]

When I read this thread I always have to think, that some of you guys maybe should try Operation BlueFlag, a dynamic multiplayer campaign.

 

While not beeing perfect it is a huge step forward and much closer to reality than the air-quakes known from the 104th for example. It makes use of player-only GCI and uses the Simple Radio Standalone tool, which simulates real radios. Apart from that it has a real dynamic environment, meaning that both sides need to attack enemy territory and defend their own, which makes teamplay and tactics prettty important.

It is by now the closest you can get to reality (at least in public MP).

 

The next round should start soon. This is the thread about the previous round with more information: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=171283

 

General discussion about BlueFlag in this thread: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=145416&page=274

 

 

Edit: I'm not in any way affiliated in any way with the team behind BlueFlag. I'm just flying on that server and thought I should recommend it here, because it made DCS so much more fun to me because of the various problems mentioned in this thread :)

Edited September 7, 2016 by QuiGon

[VTJS17_Fire]

When I read this thread I always have to think, that some of you guys maybe should try Operation BlueFlag, a dynamic multiplayer campaign.

I read about the last round of Operation Blue Flag and found this concept very interessting. But I read also about the scenario of the next round, which is limited to Fox2/ Guns and no AWACS/GCI, IIRC. :(

[Bacab]

When I read this thread I always have to think, that some of you guys maybe should try Operation BlueFlag, a dynamic multiplayer campaign.

 

While not beeing perfect it is a huge step forward and much closer to reality than the air-quakes known from the 104th for example. It makes use of player-only GCI and uses the Simple Radio Standalone tool, which simulates real radios. Apart from that it has a real dynamic environment, meaning that both sides need to attack enemy territory and defend their own, which makes teamplay and tactics prettty important.

It is by now the closest you can get to reality (at least in public MP).

 

The next round should start soon. This is the thread about the previous round with more information: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=171283

 

General discussion about BlueFlag in this thread: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=145416&page=274

 

 

Edit: I'm not in any way affiliated in any way with the team behind BlueFlag. I'm just flying on that server and thought I should recommend it here, because it made DCS so much more fun to me because of the various problems mentioned in this thread :)

Is there any tacview recording publicly available for me to make my own opinion ?

[VTJS17_Fire]

There are some videos on YouTube.

[Bacab]

There are some videos on YouTube.

Thanks but video don't give you the big picture, I would rather have an ACMI.

[VTJS17_Fire]

I can ask a buddy of my squadron, who flew sometimes on this Server. Maybe he has an acmi for you.

[bkthunder]

I flew a couple of times on Blue Flag. I agree, it's way better than 104th in terms of tactics and comms (not saying that 104 is not good, I enjoy air-quake sometimes).

 

BUT, it all depends on how many people are using radios. I had a very enjoyable time once, when quite a few people were on comms, and there was good cooperation.

Another time almost no one was on comms, and it was like flying blind.

 

Above all, the dynamic element of Blue flag is what makes the real difference. At least there are some objectives and some consequences.

Needless to say..if only DCS had a dynamic campaign...... But there are already enough threads and polls about this.

[Bacab]

I can ask a buddy of my squadron, who flew sometimes on this Server. Maybe he has an acmi for you.

Thanks !

[Whisper]

Thanks but video don't give you the big picture, I would rather have an ACMI.

 

It's good to have an inside view, though. Good examples on TheNach channel : https://www.youtube.com/user/jisellan/videos , check the Blue Flag tagged ones.

[Stuge]

I don't get the argument about "unrealistic tactics".

 

Tactics develop over time in response to the battlefield dynamics, whatever they may be. This applies both in game and in real life.

 

There haven't been extensive wars with modern jets, definitely not between equally powerful forces, only minor skirmishes. The way I see is that many advocated real world tactics and procedures are sort of idealized, because they haven't been thoroughly battle tested. It's easy to say this and that is the best real world tactic but it has not really been battle tested!

 

I guarantee that once you pit thousands of 4th generation jets against each other in a decade lasting war... many funky tactics that no one could have thought of before will arise.

 

Just a simple example.. if I remember correctly it became standard for Soviet La-5 pilots to always fly with their canopies open, to make emergency bailout possible in high speeds. This was completely against procedure. These things will come up as a conflict prolongs and pilots will get creative and find the most effective ways to deal with the enemy. People will think outside of the box under pressure.

 

In air-quake and other online practice a pilot learns the most effective tactics through trial and error - so the tactics that get cultivated in the process can be very effective indeed - and they would certainly apply in a real life situation if the real life situation were identical to the simulation ;)

Edited September 8, 2016 by Stuge

[VTJS17_Fire]

I don't get the argument about "unrealistic tactics.

It's really easy.

 

In real life, there is no major country, which would going in for war or a battle without proper SigInt, early warning capabilities and C² (such as AWACS or GCI). And I can't imagine that any well trained air force today would send out their fighters as single ships, with that little SA and a 80% probability to get shot down. With that changes, a lot of the used tactics wouldn't work, due to a better SA and mutual support.

 

Maybe some of the mission designers should read The air campaign by John A. Warden III, which is a collection and analysis of a lot of air battles in history and showing, in which circumstances they were or what would be possible today.

 

What I see public (except BlueFlag, but on RedFlag YT videos too) is a mirrored situation. Both attack and defend their own 120 miles of airspace. With that, there can't be a dynamics. It's like, if two boxers hit the others fist, again and again. :huh: Show me one conflict, in which both sides are aggressor and defender in the same battle! I know only the 6-day war, but even there was always one offenive and one defensive side in the daily battles (maybe, they were both offensive in the air campaign).

 

You're right. Peacetime procedures or ideas (maybe) won't work in the stress of a battle and maybe your adversary has some surprises, which intel didn't know. But even in this situation, the circumstances are not the same as on public servers.

Edited September 9, 2016 by VTJG17_Fire

[Stuge]

It's really easy.

 

In real life, there is no major country, which would going in for war or a battle without proper SigInt, early warning capabilities and C² (such as AWACS or GCI). And I can't imagine that any well trained air force today would send out their fighters as single ships, with that little SA and a 80% probability to get shot down. With that changes, a lot of the used tactics wouldn't work, due to a better SA and mutual support.

.

 

How do you know AWACS is going to be available for both sides of the conflict for the entire time? Or enough fighters to fly in proper wings? Maybe there can be a necessity to use "guerrilla tactics" in air combat also... land on highway airbases, single ship hit and run, hide in mountains where possible etc..

 

I think the proper way to go is that people who want more realistic missions should design and host more realistic missions, not ask others to ;)

Edited September 9, 2016 by Stuge

[VTJS17_Fire]

How do you know AWACS is going to be available for both sides of the conflict for the entire time?

If you have it at all, it will be available for the entire time of the conflict, from a maintanance point of view. Such airplanes are heavy protected (by CAP, escort or great range to any possible fighters) and I don't know any early warning air asset, which was shot down in the last 40 years.

 

 

single ship hit and run,

Yeah, the Iraqi Airforce flew some of these missions with MiG-25 Interceptors (but not at low altitude) in Operation Desert Storm, but they were often unsuccessful. One of the reasons were the lack of proper GCI guidance.

 

 

I think the proper way to go is that people who want more realistic missions should design and host more realistic missions, not ask others to ;)

For myself: I don't ask and I don#t have the time to create such complex missions and/or campaigns, I just don't fly in open public. ;)

[gavagai]

I don't get the argument about "unrealistic tactics".

 

Tactics develop over time in response to the battlefield dynamics, whatever they may be. This applies both in game and in real life.

 

There haven't been extensive wars with modern jets, definitely not between equally powerful forces, only minor skirmishes. The way I see is that many advocated real world tactics and procedures are sort of idealized, because they haven't been thoroughly battle tested. It's easy to say this and that is the best real world tactic but it has not really been battle tested!

 

In any future conflict there will be plenty of shoulder-launched IR sams and AAA close to the ground. Multiplayer maps seem to leave that stuff out in order to let the humans fight each other. The tactics are sound tactics for a scenario without sams and AAA, but completely detached from reality, present and future.;)

[bkthunder]

I think the other thing to consider is this:

DCS was never meant to be a large-scale "war" simulator. It's more of a tactical sim.

If you have enough time on your hands, you can spend a few hours building a small scenario, with a few airplanes and ground units.

I have the most fun doing COOPs with a couple of friends, on some downloaded missions.

DCS doesn't have the software architecture that allows it to "handle" hundreds of units on a large map, at least not without using some kind of NASA-super-computer :D

And even if, you'd still had to place every single one of those units by hand, one by one, and add scripts.

 

The Blue-Flag server is honestly an incredible achievement. I don't know if you can have a better experience than that in DCS.

[Luzifer]

Quake is a First Person Shooter where you play on a small map against an opposing team. The gameplay would wind up resulting in spawning, rushing in, scoring a kill or two, quickly dying, and respawning. Kill death ratios could be something outrageous like 20 kills to 30 deaths as an example.

 

This has been applied to online player versus player servers/games where no regard for personal survival is kept and the only goal is to shoot down someone else as quickly as possible. This is opposed to flying with the intent to survive and make it back alive and preferably in one piece so the plane can be used again.

 

More than that, there is a total conversion mod for Quake called Airquake where players are planes instead of humans.